Navigate:

Opinion Contributor

More spectrum means more innovation

Some of the most advanced wireless devices were launched in the U.S., the author writes. | Reuters

By STEVE LARGENT | 5/20/12 9:01 PM EDT

The U.S. wireless industry plays a vital role in Americans’ lives and in America’s economy.

More than 40,000 of the world’s wireless industry experts, policymakers and enthusiasts were in New Orleans recently for International CTIA WIRELESS 2012. A stream of new and cool wireless products and services were unveiled, including announcements by AT&T’s Connected House, MasterCard’s PayPass Wallet, HTC’s Droid Incredible 4G and Samsung’s Focus 2.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The announcement of these products seems like a beginning but the reality is that product announcements are long in the making. Part of the reason for that is because of the need for spectrum, the fuel for the wireless industry and its “virtuous cycle” of innovation. As long as our members have access to spectrum, the networks are upgraded to be faster and handle more capacity. Then the device manufacturers create new capabilities. Content creators then develop new uses and apps, so consumers can benefit from all of it. But it all starts with spectrum.

Some have accused us of “playing a game” when talking about the looming spectrum crisis. That is ridiculous for two simple reasons.

First, spectrum is the key element to addressing the “hockey stick” of demand we face in terms of usage, users and use. If there were a more effective solution, which would allow carriers to avoid spending billions of dollars at auction, our carriers would be deploying it.

As the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation’s senior research fellow, Richard Bennett, explained in a recent blog post, if there were a cheaper solution that would perform in any spectrum bands, “any such company would rule the market for smartphone service in short order. … The reason this hasn’t happened is that it’s simply not possible with the technology we have today. … The communications industry has made steady progress toward improving radio efficiency for a hundred years. … but the constraints are very real.”

Second, if the looming spectrum crisis is a “game,” then it’s one that involves a number of other countries around the world. Countries like Germany, France, South Korea, Japan and Canada are bringing an additional 120-400 MHz of spectrum to market for their wireless industries. This disparity is even more stark when you consider that the U.S. has a larger population than any of these other countries and that our wireless users talk more, at lower cost, than their counterparts in Europe and Asia. With more subscribers and more usage, but less spectrum in the pipeline, it’s clear that we need to address this disparity or risk ceding the leadership position we currently enjoy.

Readers' Comments (10)

To be more specific, the additional spectrum would also support the reform of our nation’s healthcare system. While our country struggles to reform its healthcare system, a key contributor of that reform is waiting in the wings. The push for mHealth (mobile healthcare) can’t really take place until mobile networks offer consistently fast connections that are of the highest quality possible. This will ensure transmission of images and video – i.e. CAT scans, MRIs or sonograms – between hospitals and doctors in urban or rural areas can take place on a daily basis. Additionally, applications like mobile video conferencing or –person-to-person video calling can be used for purposes of diagnosing a patient. While there are ways to dynamically manage spectrum using several air interfaces (cellular, Wi-Fi, TV white space) or apply policies to better optimize bandwidth usage, the fastest way to rectify the spectrum crunch is to make as much of it available as possible, as soon as possible, and ensure that the purchasers of the spectrum use all of it to support usage, innovation and new services...like mHealth.

Before adding more-and-more to the spectrum, we should look at how we actually use the current capacity. I want to throw 2 ideas out, implemented by 2 different Sprint MVNOs (private label service subleters).

First idea: A large number of us are in WiFi for significant portion of the day. At home. At work. On campus. At the club. At the supermarket. Republic Wireless bases their business model on this. They expect many of us to be in WiFi 60% of the day. Data via WiFi is a no-brainer. Voice is implemented via a hybrid VOIP - cellular APP and custom VOIP service. For those who fit a WiFi lifestyle they offer $19 per month unlimited. WiFi offload of cellular traffic is potentially HUGE.

Second idea: The plans. The plans offered seem to be either miniscule or gargantuan. And the same each month. And the cost of exceeding your plan limit is quite costly. Hence we buy more than we need. And since we have already paid for it.... TING.COM has an innovative billing idea. Tiers. You set a tier level for voice. A separate tier for SMS. And yet a 3rd for megabytes. You get billed for what you expect to use. And at the end of the month if you used less data than expected - you get a credit down to the correct tier level. And if you used more voice minutes - you get bumped to the next voice tier and pay the difference. Using too much does not penalize you. You just pay what you would have paid if you estimated correctly. Using too little doesn't waste money. You just pay what you would have paid if you estimated correctly.

These are but 2 simple ideas that can fundamentally improve both the bandwidth usage and customer satisfaction.

Eventually, we will need to add capacity. But, with intelligence we won't have to do it very soon. Or frequently.

American consumers are benefiting from increasingly robust nationwide wireless data services including mobile apps, real-time social media and streaming video. With new wireless subscribers signing up every day and more and more spectrum hungry services snacking on the available airwaves, of course there is less spectrum to go around. Saying that the spectrum crisis isn’t real is an excuse for inaction.

"To be more specific, the additional spectrum would also support the reform of our nation’s healthcare system. "

I would expect that 80% of the usage you cite for health care services would be best implemented via campus wide WiFi at medical facilities and medical offices and homes. And a hybrid WiFi with cellular fallback would be ideal.

How long has NAFTA been implemented? Why can't we get these providers to get some revenue sharing plan together so that we can just use minutes, messages, and megabytes anywhere: Canada, USA, Mexico? No tolls. No surcharges. Simple. Seamless.

I find it interesting that proponents of the "we need more spectrum" crowd seem to believe that spectrum, ANY spectrum, will satisfy their compulsion toward more and more broadband services in the United States. Okay, here's a counter argument: you are right. Spectrum can foster innovation. But realize first that it is not like a basket of fruit that you bring to a banquet. Not all spectrum is suitable for a wireless broadband network. Sort out first which frequency bands are appropriate to the application you plan to deploy, then petition the FCC that you need that spectrum to develop more broadband.

The discussions today, from Mr. Genachowski on down, make it clear that the FCC wants to take the lion's share of TV spectrum above channel 31 or so. Is that band of frequencies really suitable for the deployment of wireless broadband? Have studies been done to identify the kind of antenna that will be needed on a consumer wireless device to actually USE wireless broadband in the block of frequencies? Or, as I suspect, is it more a case of "we will take the spectrum and we will be the judge of how to best use it for the greater good."

Okay, maybe so. How come Verizon, sitting on spectrum in the 700 MHz band that they so desperately needed some years ago, now is eager to unload that spectrum to the highest bidder? If that spectrum was so choice, so desirable, why was it not all built out for wireless broadband? In truth, some of it was. But what about the rest of it? What's the matter, Verizon? Run out of cash?

Before we get too emotional about TV channel sharing and broadcasters giving up their channels for auction, let us please be certain the spectrum you grab, Mr. Genachowski, Mr. Largent et al., will truly function in the way you intend and not just take over the air tv out of existence. I am not too emotional about TV channel sharing or even auctions. TV will remain on cable and satellite and many operations will not change. You may contribute somewhat to the overall unemployment figures because you will put a number of transmitter engineers out of their jobs, but some of them are ready to retire anyway. The ones who will suffer are the over the air viewers, grossly underestimated in every report I read, who will surely find themselves underserved when the TV station once served them is now available only on a paid subscription basis.

And I'll just bet the mortgage that the channel that was taken away will be found to be totally unsuitable for the deployment of wireless broadband.

Broadcast spectrum for cellular service is proportional to land area, so the US having greater land area means that much more spectrum.

The more relevant point is population density, and the US is on the low end, even in its densest cities. But that merely means the cell density needs to be higher to increase the usable spectrum.

In cities, the buildings and undergrounds require lots of work to create cells that provide coverage everywhere, but that is to overcome the fragmentation of the spectrum which increases the total capacity in places with the highest density of users, so the fragmentation is a blessing. Other than the cost of investing in all the cell infrastructure, connected by fiber optic.

The quest for spectrum is to avoid investing in infrastructure by creating larger cells outside cities. But outside cities, the coverage is poor in many areas because geography fragments the spectrum and not enough cell sites exist to cover the region.

Others, including I, are more optimistic in the near-term prospects for technology to improve wireless capacity. One good example is a recent report for Ofcom that projects technology improvements out to 2030:

Your arguments are totally discredited when you base them on studies you pay for. Roger Entner's work "This report has been authored on behalf of CTIA." Richard Bennett's at ITIF is substantially supported by payments from CTIA members. ITIF itself is discredited because it refuses to disclose who pays the bills.

More spectrum would reduce the costs of your members to deliver a given amount of capacity, but almost every engineer - and now all the government experts - believe we get even more capacity when spectrum is shared. Monopoly control of most spectrum is now obsolete.